SAN FRANCISCO--Microsoft said it plans next month to offer long-awaited 64-bit versions of its Windows operating system.

Speaking at the Intel Developer Forum, Windows chief Jim Allchin said the desktop version of the souped-up Windows would come at the beginning of April, while the server version would come at the end of the month.

"We're locked on to 64-bit," Allchin said, encouraging developers to start tailoring their applications to include the ability to take advantage of the extra processing power.

Last month, Microsoft released a second, near-final "release candidate" version of the operating system. The company had promised a final release would come by the end of June.

The 64-bit versions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 have been a long time coming, particularly for chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices, which has offered such chips for roughly two years in the server market and 18 months in the desktop PC market.

Actually the only real advantage to 64-bit as far as I am concerned is that you will no longer be limited to 2GB of RAM per application. That would be nice especially with programs like Photoshop. But, I suspect that it won't really do much good until there is a 64-bit version of Photoshop which Adobe does not have planned at this time.

The only main problem I see for experienced users is the availability, or lack thereof, of hardware drivers. If major manufacter's hardware is supported upon release, then it's no big deal. Another plus would be 64-bit programs being released soon after release.

Windows isn't such a bad OS if an experienced user is at the helm. Now, if an amateur were to get his hands on Windows XP 64 (why he/she would in the first place, I dunno) then things could get a bit messy.

Now, I'm not a MS advocate or anything, but I know that it beats, hands down, any other OS (available for PC) in ease of use. I use Linux as well (several flavors) and I have to say that it's still got a far ways to go before being accepted as a mainstream desktop OS. Until that happens, I'll try to live with Windows. When it does happen, I'll be one of the first to jump the boat.

... for Windows. In the case of Linux, it was ported to the 64-bit platforms before the CPUs were commercially available in part because the preponderance of drivers were open-source and collected in a single place (and, for the most part, needed no modification).

For Windows, however, you have a two-fold problem: drivers are product model specific (under Linux, typically hardware chipsets are broadly supported, so a single driver supports a swath of devices), and provided by the manufacturer. It's the onus of the manufacturer to create 64-bit drivers and provide them to MS or with their products. This is not too difficult, but will generally require more than a simple recompile (if, nothing else, to create a second package/installer and all those configuration files and test them).

I'd also be interested to see what tangible advantage it would have. Windows is particularly popular on the desktop platform and is favored by non-technical people with low-to-moderate performance requirements. What they require more is stable drivers for a wide array of popular peripherals. 64-bit Windows is not going to do anything for the secretarial pool of any company.

The only place where I can see an impact might be in the server space... but here they are very much the late-comer (nearly 3 years behind Linux) and they are already feeling the heat. Perhaps it's a move to keep-up with the Jones'. I'm not sure, however, based on their current software catalog, that 64-bit Windows will provide any significant performance boost either (at least not until they address upgrading their other platform offerings).

This story interest me because I have an Athlon64 that apparently has (as far as I know) unrealized potential. Would a 64-bit shift to Windows be in the form of a service update, ie - SP3, or would it be a standalone OS that people would have to buy? How would this affect game and application performance? I know that new games play great on my current processor, but older games run at double-speed.

Check PCworld.com for an in-depth review of the beta, which you can download for free from microsoft's website. In a nutshell, you'll need to get 64-bit versions of your favorite applications in order to double teh speed. I e-mailed Adobe about the 64-bit version of Photoshop.

To get to 64 bit, I'll use Linux and switch over to Tiger when Apple releases it. I am so sick and tired of fighting viruses, malware, service packs, and the entire Windows experience, that I'm ready for a change, and 64-bit Windows isn't it.

BTW, someone commented on the lack of drivers for the 64-bit Windows, which is ironic. I will not be surprised to see viruses and other garbage optimized for Win 64 before we ever see drivers.

Check PCworld.com for an in-depth review of teh beta, which you can download for free from microsoft's website. In a nutshell, you'll need to get 64-bit versions of your favorite applications in order to double teh speed. I e-mailed Adobe about the 64-bit version of Photoshop.

Supposedly the 64-bit version will be able to run *most* 32-bit drivers fine, but not all. It'll be hit or miss, like the days when Win2k came out. People easily forget how much resoures MSFT had to devote to get all the drivers ready for XP, given the sheer number of hardware devices available for windows.

Whatever you here from these whiners will all be but a murmmer this time next year Mr. gates. Then when you back on top they'll find something eles to whine about...{it happens every new o.s....update...service pack....etc....}. The bottom line is you've got the best thing going and it'll be that way for a long time.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CNET's Site Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to:

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.